![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I really do not like this article, but I just don't know what to change to improve it. I feel the overall tone is as if it were being told by someone who doesn't like public education. The author appears to be someone who attended private school or someone who views all public school in this country to be poor, which just isn't the case. The current issues section has somewhat of a conservative bias. Could be included that discussed how school system relates to the community, or for example, the school culture? Little about after school activities is included which are important to many students and an important part of american educational values. Could get an author here who is/was a public school teacher or administrator to help this article out? It so bad.. I almost feel it needs to be completely reworked from scratch because it just doesn't explain the US education system as it is to those involved in it.
Not that you really seem to be an expert in education...can we spell today?-- naryathegreat | (talk) 19:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
The conservative tone is readily apparent to an international reader such as myself. For example, "...politically correct curriculum currently in widespread vogue within the public eduction establishment." Although that statement is immediately followed by a reference, the reference does not confirm that: the curriculum is politically correct; or that: such curriculums are in widespread use. And even if these claims are true they miss the point: if it is a "vogue" then how did it arrive, how did it spread, why is the US experience different?
The statement that US school funding is high sounds surprised by that. The US is a wealthy nation with a strong regard for education (even US lobby groups use the trade dress of academic research institutions). A high level of spending is to be expected. What is surprising is the promotion of the idea that spending is too high. Since this is unexpected, the causes of that idea and the forces of its promotion could be briefly outlined.
The article reads as if written by a lobby group opposed to government-funded education. US education is, on the whole, regarded internationally as a success. You can judge by results: the US is a powerhouse of research, is the cultural centre of the English-speaking world, etc. Gdt ( talk) 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, people always accuse wikipedia of being too liberal; it seems that the writer of this article is a conservative fucktard. This article was clearly written by and for conservatives who likely want prayer and intelligent design/creationism taught/practiced in public schools. Oh, I forgot you've been to every school in the U.S. so you obviously know the state and that all of your sources are 100% reliable, right?
The following paragraph doesn't sit quite right.
First, the footnote (which points to the NPR/Kaiser/Harvard survey) only pertains to the very last bit, about what "a majority of Americans" want. I'd say that even this goes too far — who's to say that the sample was representative of the population? Better to phrase it as, "According to a 2004 study, the majority of a 1001-parent group polled said that . . ." and then give the footnote.
Interestingly, a majority of those parents said that their parents and their schools only did a "fair/poor" job of educating them about sexual issues. Maybe any progress is good progress?
Second, the other statements need backing too. The survey only glancingly touches upon the current legal status quo, and it does not address how Bush's stance has influenced schools' decisions. Ergo, these statements came from another source. That source might only be the writer's fevered imagination; there's no way to tell. (Oh, if I only had the stacks of evidence we used on Debate Team to argue sex ed, ROTC and all those fun things.) Assuming good faith, these statements may be absolutely true, and they are certainly consistent with my personal experience and prior knowledge. I have no problem with letting them stay, providing they are properly referenced.
Anville 18:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand why we can't put the Regents (Examinations) instead of the TAKS. ( Kyla 22:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC))
Just a note 1001 participants would likely qualify as a satisfactory sample size. National polls rarely have more than 2000 or participants and that it is to track the opinions of the entire country. This survey was only for parents, which doesn't include everyone. There is no need to belittle the poll or undermine its results. Plus the survey in question comes from very reputable sources. I do agree though that text was poorly written. Flashdornfeld ( talk) 16:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In the third paragraph of this article, it says the US has a 99.9% literacy rate. In the infobox, it goves the figure at 97%, while in the fourth paragraph, it says the literacy rate is an ambiguous "84-98%". Should this be fixed, or am I missing something (or has this already been talked about)? Atb129 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I seriously doubt the literacy figures quoted at this time (99% for men and women) ... because they collide with everything I've heard and been told for decades. There needs to be a couple of credible scientific sources for this incredible claim, instead of the CIA Factbook.
A citation in the article (US DOE) gives a 98% MINIMAL literacy rate (is that the standard?) and a 14% "Below Basic" rating. Again: I doubt that number.
Twang (
talk)
23:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
One sentence says, "Unlike most other industrialized countries, the United States does not have a centralized educational system on the national scale". This is a WP:YESPOV statement. It takes the POV implicitly that is is correct to have centralized control. There are several factors that need to be addressed (besides POV): 1) the US is the largest industrialized nation, considerably learger than whichever is second (Japan?). It is reasonable to imagine that a really large system cannot be managed well from one place. 2) By the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights, the constitution leaves to the states all powers not surrendered to the national government [1]. This would include education which is not mentioned in the Constitution. 3) There are 14 states that predate the national government which was the reason for that amendment.
The sentence needs changing. Student7 ( talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As many people know, there are three "tracks" in European and Japanese schools "high school" equivalents (and probably even "middle schools") that I will call a) blue collar, b) clerical and c) college-bound. When comparing American scores with Europeans, the upper "two-thirds" (I don't really know the numbers here) of their schools, the "clerks" and "pre-collegiates" are normally compared against 100% of American attendees. Someone tried to insert language that said this but was deleted for lack of a decent reference. This needs to be re-inserted (with a good reference) if true, and I think it is. Student7 ( talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the page "crumbling public schools" redirects to this page. While I'm sure that there are a lot of people that would agree with that evaluation, we should probably delete it.
Thylacine222 ( talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the curriculum issues section that seems a little weird to me:
Of those, about 1.3 million children speak English "not well" or "not at all."
I think the sentence should be rewritten. I understand it is quoting a citation, but citations are for getting information, not quoting exactly. Sense is more important in my opinion. So I think it should instead say:
Of those, about 1.3 million children do not speak English well or at all.
I'm going to go ahead and change it. If for any reason someone disagrees, feel free to change it back, but I think this is much better. Eatanorange ( talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Safety of children is paramount. This is why NYC has a New York City Police Department School Safety Division. Don't know how to refer to this group in the new section but it is dramatic. Seems to be little else in Wikipedia about this topic. Student7 ( talk) 12:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The article starts to try to discuss the "theory" of evolution, vs "it's only a theory", etc. The article may require that more be said, but, there are several articles already on that sort of thing. For example: Evolution as theory and fact, of course Evolution itself. I would think that allowing those articles to present the facts might be appropriate rather than attempting to present arguments that might be considered trivialized or WP:OR. This also allows the reader to make up her/his own mind. Student7 ( talk) 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)